Alen Baghdasarian v. Amazon.com Inc.
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Alen Baghdasarian appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Amazon.com, Inc. Baghdasarian argues that the district court incorrectly found that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether he established reliance as required by California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
No genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Baghdasarian relied upon Amazon’s policy regarding its shipping and handling fee in deciding to purchase books through the Amazon Marketplace. The UCL requires a plaintiff to have “lost money or property as a result of” the business practice or act at issue. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 (emphasis added). The UCL’s “as a result of’ language imposes an “actual reliance” requirement, thus, to prevail, a plaintiff must establish that the alleged misrepresentation was an “immediate cause” or “substantial factor” in the plaintiffs decision to engage in the injury-producing conduct. In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298, 326-27 , 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 559 , 207 P.3d 20 (2009).